The problem with this kind of retribution - with torture and abuse as retribution - is that it reduces one to the same level as the monster who committed the atrocity. I wonder if I would want such retribution had I been the victim of such a monster. Or, if I would want such retribution had I been a victim of a Hitler or Stalin. I just don't know the answer.

At the same time, I question the purpose of keeping such criminals alive. Technically I don't support the death penalty, but to be honest on some level, I wonder why someone just doesn't off such persons, off the record. Or leave them to the devices of other prisoners, many of whom despise rapists and pedophiles. There is a man imprisoned for the torture and death of some 43 prostitutes here in British Columbia (known as the pig farmer). I really wonder why someone just didn't 'arrange' his death. To what point is he sitting in prison for life?

Click to expand...

As others have said, the purpose of prison is to protect society. There are a lot of punishments aimed at reform, but prison isn't one of them. In fact, the rate of re-offending is quite high, which is why for less serious crimes, some sort of control order or rehabilitation is sometimes favoured. It's why Lindsay Lohan has been to rehab so many times, really

As to why they didn't 'arrange' his death: people in Western societies are generally fairly happy about the fact they are "free". In the Us especially, it's supposed to be the home of the free. You cannot have a free society when governments or prison guards are secretly arranging the execution of prisoners at will. It's simply too arbitrary.

Either you have a proper death penalty and death row policy, or you don't. There's absolutely no room for the arbitrary, secret execution of prisoners unless you want to forgo your freedoms and admit that you live in a country that Obama and Bush describe as anti-democratic, such as Iraq or Iran. There would be outrage if an innocent person was put in jail without a trial and then arbitrarily executed, and there absolutely should be. The justice system doesn't just protect criminals, it protects everyone. It fails at times, sure. But in general, it's a hell of a lot better than living in a country where women are stoned to death for refusing a forced marriage, or where you can be tortured for the colour of your skin.

Also, as others have said, the point of prison is punishment and to keep offenders off the street. If Castro is in prison for life, he can't re-offend. If he's dead, there's always the risk that he will become a martyr for sick bastards who aspire to commit the same crime. There's a perverse glory in being executed that the vast majority of murderers and rapists simply don't deserve.

I've always thought it silly that people think those in jail can't reoffend. They often do reoffend, but it's in the confines of the jail. Plenty of prisoners have extra sentences tacked on to the sentences they were originally sent to prison for because they committed crimes while in jail. A crime is a crime whether committed in the confines of a jail or not. People just don't care so much about crimes committed in jail, because they figure it was deserved -whether for the crime they committed to get locked up in the first place, or something else. People rarely feel as sorry for criminals who have crimes committed against them.

I am for the death penalty in theory, but in practice I am not. One innocent life taken is one too many, and people make mistakes and wrongly convict. I'd love it to be implemented in cases where it is "certain" that the guilty party is indeed guilty (as seems the case here), but then all cases are "certain" when they're found guilty. In theory, it should work, in practice, it doesn't.

Who said they wish for it to happen? All that was initially said is that it does happen. Unless you're a big bad-*ss who can easily take care of himself, those convicted of certain crimes will either spend their time in isolation for protection, or (if it gets out what they were convicted of) often have to deal with 'prison justice'. There's no reason for me to wish anything on this Castro guy, because if convicted, I already know what awaits him. And yet again, I don't feel at ALL for sorry for what likely awaits him. Do you?

Click to expand...

Do you really think that believing in a civilized justice system is about feeling sympathy for people who commit heinous crimes? What I care about is my country and how it functions and that we are able collectively through our justice system to deal aptly with those who commit such horrific crimes.

I actually said that he should be chained up and the other prisoners should have their way with him. I stand by it. He is not reformable. He is scum. I wouldn't want my tax money to go to keeping him alive in prison for the rest of his life.

I, like you, am not at all sorry for what awaits him. No matter what his fate, NOTHING can be worse than what he did to those poor girls, their families, and the community. I guess I'm a horrible person.

Click to expand...

Needless to say you're not a horrible person. For me, I put this perpetrator as much as possible out of my mind. I trust to our justice system to deal with him and yes it does fail sometimes but that is a different discussion. I don't want to give him continued power even as he is in custody to wreak havoc by even thinking about him so much that it evokes anger. He isn't worth a moment's thought.

As others have said, the purpose of prison is to protect society. There are a lot of punishments aimed at reform, but prison isn't one of them. In fact, the rate of re-offending is quite high, which is why for less serious crimes, some sort of control order or rehabilitation is sometimes favoured. It's why Lindsay Lohan has been to rehab so many times, really

Click to expand...

My understanding is that the objectives (in no particular order), are to punish, to protect society, and in many cases, also to rehabilitate. Lindsay Lohan usually goes to rehab (not prison/jail) for substance abuse issues, which is not the same thing; addiction is a hard thing to kick. As for recidivism, I'm not sure what the rates are for different types of offenses, but there are certainly people who do manage to stay out of prison and lead normal lives after they are released. Supervision is important, and so are opportunities to reintegrate into society. Though all that, of course, is not relevant to Castro's case. He's not going to be leaving prison, at least not legally.

I've always thought it silly that people think those in jail can't reoffend. They often do reoffend, but it's in the confines of the jail. Plenty of prisoners have extra sentences tacked on to the sentences they were originally sent to prison for because they committed crimes while in jail. A crime is a crime whether committed in the confines of a jail or not. People just don't care so much about crimes committed in jail, because they figure it was deserved -whether for the crime they committed to get locked up in the first place, or something else. People rarely feel as sorry for criminals who have crimes committed against them.

Click to expand...

That's a good point; the statistics on prison rape are appalling, and often it's the weakest who are targeted. It's worth noting that many people are in prison for things other than violent crimes, and that women in prison are often the target of violence too, including sexual violence. Of course Ariel Castro's crimes as reported so far are truly heinous, and he belongs in prison; but I just don't feel society, and the criminal justice system, should be in the business of condoning any sort of violent additions to anyone's sentence. Rape is a crime, always; it should never be considered a legitimate form of punishment. And it's the job of the justice system to dispense justice on behalf of victims and society, not that of fellow inmates.

I am for the death penalty in theory, but in practice I am not. One innocent life taken is one too many, and people make mistakes and wrongly convict. I'd love it to be implemented in cases where it is "certain" that the guilty party is indeed guilty (as seems the case here), but then all cases are "certain" when they're found guilty. In theory, it should work, in practice, it doesn't.

Click to expand...

Yes, wrongful convictions are something that has really affected the way people think about the death penalty. While there are cases where there's no doubt that the crime is horrific and the right person is being punished, all you need is to look at a case like Anthony Graves', or the Central Park Five, or quite a few of the cases listed by the Innocence Project, to have serious concerns about how the death penalty is applied.

Returning to the victims/survivors in this case, this article argues that the public interest and the media attention are essentially keeping the women prisoner now, and hindering their recovery. I think that's a valid point.

And as Zemgirl mentioned above the U.S. Constitution forbids cruel and unusual punishment. The fact that rape and other forms of violence happen in U.S. prisons is a violation of our Constitutional values and something that should not happen, not a part of our mandated punishment.

Click to expand...

The Constitution is not about values. It is SOLELY a list of what the federal government does and is not permitted to do. The Bill of Rights is about what the federal government CANNOT do (prevent citizens from assembling, owning weapons, require them to belong to a particular church to serve in government, seize property without legal cause, quarter troops in their homes, self-incriminate, and in the context of this conversation inflict punishment judged to be excessively cruel or 'unusual'.) It's about limiting government power, not about granting rights or establishing values. The only real "value" it's establishing is strict limits on the national government.

Guards encouraging other prisoners to torture someone would be a crime itself, not because it's cruel or unusual but because telling someone to commit a violent crime is a crime. Not caring if it happens to someone who's committed heinous acts against innocent people is human nature.

And prison is not supposed to be comfortable or pleasant. If they're not going to execute someone, but not going to release them, it should be the minimum required to sustain life. There is no reason to make someone comfortable, healthy, or happy in prison if they are being kept there because they're a danger to the public.

I have faith in Karma and I sincerely hope that this horrible man will somehow, somewhere be on the receiving end for everything that he has dealt out to those women. I trust the justice system to find him guilty. If while he is in prison and confined the way he confined his victims, he suffers the same indignities and abuse that he heaped on them, I am not going to cry about it.

And prison is not supposed to be comfortable or pleasant. If they're not going to execute someone, but not going to release them, it should be the minimum required to sustain life. There is no reason to make someone comfortable, healthy, or happy in prison if they are being kept there because they're a danger to the public.

Click to expand...

Aside from life sentences, if we're talking about shorter sentences then we're also talking about people who presumably will be released back to the community. In those cases, imprisonment is a punishment that should be unpleasant, but we don't want it to be such torture that the prisoners even more unsocialized when they get out than when they went in.

The Constitution is not about values. It is SOLELY a list of what the federal government does and is not permitted to do. The Bill of Rights is about what the federal government CANNOT do (prevent citizens from assembling, owning weapons, require them to belong to a particular church to serve in government, seize property without legal cause, quarter troops in their homes, self-incriminate, and in the context of this conversation inflict punishment judged to be excessively cruel or 'unusual'.) It's about limiting government power, not about granting rights or establishing values. The only real "value" it's establishing is strict limits on the national government.

Guards encouraging other prisoners to torture someone would be a crime itself, not because it's cruel or unusual but because telling someone to commit a violent crime is a crime. Not caring if it happens to someone who's committed heinous acts against innocent people is human nature.

And prison is not supposed to be comfortable or pleasant. If they're not going to execute someone, but not going to release them, it should be the minimum required to sustain life. There is no reason to make someone comfortable, healthy, or happy in prison if they are being kept there because they're a danger to the public.

Click to expand...

Well I think the Constitution embodies the values on which this country was founded and endures. I'm not sure we are really talking about the same thing in that regard, but its mostly beside the point.

I agree people who lose their rights to live freely in society should not expect for life in prison to be pleasant. They should have their human needs met but there isn't going to be much else. You've lost those rights if you are convicted and sentenced to life in prision. You have not lost the right to be treated humanely but that is not the same thing.

It certainly is a normal human reaction to a heinous crime(s) to think of the perpetrator being served up the treatment he inflicted on others. When we learn about something like this we're processing how to deal with the notion that in our society someone could inflict this horror on three young women. I don't want to focus on the perpetrator at all, that's my way of dealing with it, but others will be so disgusted they will feel the need to say he should be treated in ways we don't as a society condone. I don't blame anyone for feeling that way.

As someone noted above, crimes can be committed in prison and beating or raping another prisoner no matter what crime that person was convicted of, is just another crime. As a society its incumbent on us to prevent those crimes, just as we seek to prevent crimes against citizens who are not incarcerated.

There are conflicting reports about whether Michelle Knight's mother has seen her or not, but MamaKnight (and her lawyer) continue to make this about her...and I read Michelle Knight may need facial reconstruction surgery. It sounds like she was made to bear the brunt of the physical abuse - not to diminish the abuse of the others, it's not a zero sum situation, but reading that she was pregnant a lot but abused to keep her from having children while Amanda's child was not only wanted but the others were threatened if the baby died, it does sound like she was made to physically suffer just unbelievably. Every tie I think the story can't get worse it does.

This whole thing is mind boggling. Castro would not allow his brothers to go past the kitchen, and yet nobody thought it was odd? I am not saying they had a hand in it, but why wouldn't anyone question a bizzare behavior for almost 10 years? I can understand- though to a small extent- neighbors not wanting to interfere when something looks odd, but family members?

I have a tough time having sympathy for this jerk and the guy who kidnapped Jaycee Dugard. They are scums and they deserve to be in prison, with no possibility of parol. I am not going to condone anyone attacking a prison mate, but if that happens, it is the result of the horrible things these evil people did to the innocent girls. They have 'earned' it. I see no reason to make their lives in prison 'pleasant'. As far as safety goes, prison rules are to be followed, that's all.

If a relative is consistently odd, and has always been odd (and many of the family's comments lead me to believe this is true of Castro), then when that family member does other odd things, in my experience the typical reaction is to try to ignore it. I have plenty of family members who either do odd things or things that I consider to be detrimental to their lives, but I'm not going to bring up the elephant in the room unless I have no other option because it will create conflict. Most human beings, I imagine, are the same way. I am not at all surprised that Castro's family did not bring up his bizarre behavior. It undoubtedly seemed the much easier option, and most people prefer the easier option. Most of the time, when we ignore our loved one's odd behaviors, it does not lead to such a horrific scenario.

Although we live a thousand miles apart I have been to (and stayed at) my sister's home at least a dozen times. I've never been upstairs. Not that she's prevented me but there's never been a reason to go up there. The only reason I've been in the basement is I preferred sleeping in the bedroom down there because it had it's own bathroom. If not for that I'd probably never have been down there, either. Once again, though, no one ever told me I couldn't.

Who said they wish for it to happen? All that was initially said is that it does happen. Unless you're a big bad-*ss who can easily take care of himself, those convicted of certain crimes will either spend their time in isolation for protection, or (if it gets out what they were convicted of) often have to deal with 'prison justice'. There's no reason for me to wish anything on this Castro guy, because if convicted, I already know what awaits him. And yet again, I don't feel at ALL for sorry for what likely awaits him. Do you?

Click to expand...

I don't feel sorry for him or for what may happen to him while incarcerated, but that doesn't mean I wish it for him as others have stated. There is a justice system in place for a reason and I choose to have faith in it, even if it does fail at times. While vigilante justice is often tempting, it's a dangerous path to go down for many reasons.

It's interesting to compare the two high-profile criminals du jour. I haven't followed the Jodi Arias trial that closely, but from what I hear they are considering the death penalty because of the "cruel and unusual" manner in which she killed the guy. If they give her the death penalty for that, Castro better get it too. He was far more cruel to his multiple victims, and for a much longer time. Jodi's victim suffered, but it was over in a couple hours. The three women imprisoned by Castro.....physically and mentally tortured for years. The latter is far more evil, even though the victims survived.

Of course I have heard legal folks talking about him getting the death penalty if found guilty, but only on the basis of his having induced miscarriages. Which is irritating; once again, the life of a fetus is considered a higher priority than the well-being of the woman carrying it.

It's interesting to compare the two high-profile criminals du jour. I haven't followed the Jodi Arias trial that closely, but from what I hear they are considering the death penalty because of the "cruel and unusual" manner in which she killed the guy. If they give her the death penalty for that, Castro better get it too. He was far more cruel to his multiple victims, and for a much longer time. Jodi's victim suffered, but it was over in a couple hours. The three women imprisoned by Castro.....physically and mentally tortured for years. The latter is far more evil, even though the victims survived.

Of course I have heard legal folks talking about him getting the death penalty if found guilty, but only on the basis of his having induced miscarriages. Which is irritating; once again, the life of a fetus is considered a higher priority than the well-being of the woman carrying it.

Click to expand...

I don't think this is true. I think the reason that murder with cruel and unusual circumstances can carry the death penalty is because it's exactly that - it ends a life. Any other crime is not considered as severe - and therefore doesn't carry the death penalty - because it doesn't end of a life, and therefore it is, in theory, possible for the victims to recover.

It's interesting to compare the two high-profile criminals du jour. I haven't followed the Jodi Arias trial that closely, but from what I hear they are considering the death penalty because of the "cruel and unusual" manner in which she killed the guy. If they give her the death penalty for that, Castro better get it too. He was far more cruel to his multiple victims, and for a much longer time. Jodi's victim suffered, but it was over in a couple hours. The three women imprisoned by Castro.....physically and mentally tortured for years. The latter is far more evil, even though the victims survived.

Of course I have heard legal folks talking about him getting the death penalty if found guilty, but only on the basis of his having induced miscarriages. Which is irritating; once again, the life of a fetus is considered a higher priority than the well-being of the woman carrying it.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately the legal system would give him death penalty only due to the miscarriages caused by him. I think what he did to those women was worse than death, but legally he cannot get death sentence for that. I think in my book of morals the kidnapper of Jaycee Dugard also deserved the death penalty, but legally they could not give him that.

I have a tough time having sympathy for this jerk and the guy who kidnapped Jaycee Dugard. They are scums and they deserve to be in prison, with no possibility of parol. I am not going to condone anyone attacking a prison mate, but if that happens, it is the result of the horrible things these evil people did to the innocent girls. They have 'earned' it. I see no reason to make their lives in prison 'pleasant'. As far as safety goes, prison rules are to be followed, that's all.

Click to expand...

I don't think anyone feels sympathy or wants to make their lives in prison pleasant. I want what you want - the rules to be followed. Having them secretly executed or tortured in prison is not following the rules.

I am against the death penalty anyway, although that's more of a topic for PI. The USA is the only Western country which still practices capital punishment, and I won't pretend to understand why since this puts them in the same category as countries such as Pakistan, Iraq and Saudi Arabia...and we all know what lovely human rights records those countries have.

If there has to be a death penalty, it should be subject to very strict rules IMO. I can understand why it might be seen to be a good punishment for murderers, but in all the horror of what those poor girls endured, the happy ending to it is that they did survive. I think Castro should be put in prison for life without the possibility of parole. No one is going to visit him. He will have no control over his life or anyone else's, and he won't be able to beat women up, which for a controlling man who kept slaves in his basement is going to be exceptionally hard.

And I actually never went to my brother's house at all when he was last living in the same city as me. We always met up elsewhere

I am against the death penalty anyway, although that's more of a topic for PI. The USA is the only Western country which still practices capital punishment, and I won't pretend to understand why since this puts them in the same category as countries such as Pakistan, Iraq and Saudi Arabia...and we all know what lovely human rights records those countries have.

If there has to be a death penalty, it should be subject to very strict rules IMO.

Click to expand...

The death penalty in the USA is subject to very strict rules. It does not compare with places like Egypt, Pakistan, etc. There are appeals over appeals, and the convict lives for many years before being executed. One reason to avoid death penalty, however, is that occasionally an innocent person gets convicted and gets the death penalty for a crime he did not commit. There have been cases like that, and I suspect it was rampant against blacks. It's better to let a criminal live than to make an innocent person die. I have mixed feelings about death penalty, and I have never been able to settle on either side for very long.

I think a good punishment for these jerks would be to make them live in a small cell, with no interaction with others, no entertainment; just the necessities to survive. Let them live with the hell they created, until they die naturally.

The Constitution is not about values. It is SOLELY a list of what the federal government does and is not permitted to do. The Bill of Rights is about what the federal government CANNOT do (prevent citizens from assembling, owning weapons, require them to belong to a particular church to serve in government, seize property without legal cause, quarter troops in their homes, self-incriminate, and in the context of this conversation inflict punishment judged to be excessively cruel or 'unusual'.) It's about limiting government power, not about granting rights or establishing values. The only real "value" it's establishing is strict limits on the national government.

Guards encouraging other prisoners to torture someone would be a crime itself, not because it's cruel or unusual but because telling someone to commit a violent crime is a crime. Not caring if it happens to someone who's committed heinous acts against innocent people is human nature.

And prison is not supposed to be comfortable or pleasant. If they're not going to execute someone, but not going to release them, it should be the minimum required to sustain life. There is no reason to make someone comfortable, healthy, or happy in prison if they are being kept there because they're a danger to the public.

Click to expand...

Everything you said are values, are they not? The Constitution certainly was founded upon values of the framers and drafters of the Amendments. People have to define "free speech" and "cruel and unusual" among a great many things. It's about restricting what the government can do, and yet why are there restrictions? Because there are things that the founders and we as Americans hold to be invaluable parts of life, liberty, and property.

Many parts of the Constitution are vague, and let's not kid ourselves about values having nothing to do with the Constitution because both conservative originalists and/or textualists and liberal structuralists are in some way imposing some sort of values when they interpret the Constitution. Every high court judge is guilty of that because the Constitution's broad wording and the country's emphasis on having some sort of national identity and value lends itself to that. That is not to say they don't make reasonable, well-supported, and well-articulated decisions based on stare decisis and something explicitly or implicitly written or said by one of the founders or framers, but even that can be up to interpretation.

Btw, the Constitution also applies to the States thanks to the Civil War Amendments and the idea of substantive due process which some don't like, but was an answer to some of the worst Supreme Court decisions that perpetuated a political process in which minorities and other disenfranchised groups were not able to participate in the political system (and thus create change democratically) due to rigging of the system.

I have always gotten a chill in my spine whenever I hear stories of what prison life is like. Prison conditions are horrible with all the drug use, rapes, gangs violence, smuggling contraband goods etc. I sincerely believe prisoners should be fairly and humanely treated as well as safeguarded from all of the above. However there are those like Ariel Castro, and the Boston bombing suspect who I would not lose sleep over if they were to be given some of their own medicine. But having these guys locked up in a tiny cage 23 hours a day for the rest of their lives sounds like a worse punishment.

The death penalty in the USA is subject to very strict rules. It does not compare with places like Egypt, Pakistan, etc. There are appeals over appeals, and the convict lives for many years before being executed. One reason to avoid death penalty, however, is that occasionally an innocent person gets convicted and gets the death penalty for a crime he did not commit. There have been cases like that, and I suspect it was rampant against blacks. It's better to let a criminal live than to make an innocent person die. I have mixed feelings about death penalty, and I have never been able to settle on either side for very long.

Click to expand...

Yes, it is subject to strict rules. Some people (not you) have been suggesting that those rules should be ignored and he should be executed on the quiet, or that he should get the death penalty for his crimes, which don't actually qualify for the death penalty. My point is that if he were to receive it, it would be in a justice system no better than those of countries with flagrant human rights abuse that we seek to liberate and democratise. My point wasn't aimed at you, even though I quoted you

I have always gotten a chill in my spine whenever I hear stories of what prison life is like. Prison conditions are horrible with all the drug use, rapes, gangs violence, smuggling contraband goods etc. I sincerely believe prisoners should be fairly and humanely treated as well as safeguarded from all of the above. However there are those like Ariel Castro, and the Boston bombing suspect who I would not lose sleep over if they were to be given some of their own medicine. But having these guys locked up in a tiny cage 23 hours a day for the rest of their lives sounds like a worse punishment.

Click to expand...

How about you? Are you a perfect person? Haven't you done some things wrong in your life?

Did anyone see the three girls' video messages that were released yesterday? It sounds like they have a really good group around them helping them through this, and I do so hope things turn out well for them all, poor things.

I saw excerpts of it. It was good to hear them speak so confidently. I was especially glad to hear Michelle Knight speak, since her well being was the least reported on. Now I hope the press leaves them alone to live peacefully.